PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1980
PRIME MINISTER INTERVIEWED ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS 7 . LAURIE WILSON
Question: Prime Minister, things got pretty heated today in Parliament. Was that
really necessary, do you think?
Prime Minister:
No, I. don't think it is necessary,. and I really do think it is
appalling Debate ought to be on the basis of argument, one way or
another, and it ought to be responded to on that basis. I don't
think I have ever seen or heard such a personal attack in the time
I have been in Parliament, but, I take that to be a mark of people
who. are totally devoid of arguments, and totally devoid of policies.
Question: But don't you think you were being somewhat provocative-effectively,
what you were doing was accusing the Labor Party per se, as being
sympathetic to the Russian cause, in particular to the situation
in Afghanistan.
Prime Minister:
Let's take what I said, quite exactly, because what I said, I think,
is accurate that there is a thread in the Australian Labor Party
which seeks to find excuses, or if not that, reasons why we should
do nothing. Now, reasons why we should do nothing over the boycott
of the Olympics Games, for example. Mr Hayden started by saying
yes, he could be in favour of an effective boycott, yes, he would
be if there is strong international support. Well, fair enough.
But then if you believe, as he does, that an effective boycott would
get the message through to the Soviet Union about the abhorrence that
we all feel, more clearly and more strongly than anything else.
Why does he now take a view which leads him to argue very strongly
against any boycott. -The logic of his own earlier position should
be that he would help us to argue for an ef fective boycott. It is no
good saying, " If there is an effective boycott, I'll join it",
after 40 other countries have joined it!' If you believe it you have
got to argue for it.. So that is one very clear instance where a
change in view by Mr Hayden now seeks to undermine the position
that the Government has taken and therefore undermine our mark of
disapproval of the Soviet Union. You could go on into other areas
in what has been said about trade and the importance of the matter,
which they also seek to diminish.
Question: But, from the outset, Mr Hayden has always made the point that they
were not in favour, that they did not support what happened in
Afghanistan. Prime Minister:
That is not in dispute, but if you don't support something, and if
you believe it is serious-and if on all available advice to us,
' it is serious-then you need'to do something about it.
It is not good enough on the one hand to say, " We are opposed to the / 2
2
Prime Minister: ( cant.)
Rtussians moving into Afghanistan", then to seek to frustrate every
single thing that the Government might do or seek to do to make sure
t~ hat we along with others, exhibit a collective determination so that
the Solriet Union will know it can't do that again, that there mustn't
be -any nore Afghanistans.
Now Mr Hayden has to make up his own mind where he wants to stand.
He condemns -all right and I accept that. Wle all accept that.
That is not in dispute, but what I do say is condemnation of a military
invasion, involving units of the best armed army in the world
going into a non-aligned country, going into a country that could
offer a threat to no-one. No way could Afghanistan ever be a threat
to the Soviet Union. Now, it is not good enough just to condemn
what we say. that condemnation has to be brought through in as
realistic a way as can be to the Soviet Union. Again, I put it all
in the context of a kind of experience that the world has been
through on earlier occasions. In 1936, everyone tried to make
excuses, reasons for doing nothing nobody approved Hitler moving
into the Rhineland, or I don't think they did. Nobody really
approved them marching into Austria or approved them marching into
Czechoslovakia, or approved Italy going into Ethopia, but what they
sought on every hand to do was to argue that we mustn't do anything,
that the free world, France and Britain, must sit back and let Italy
and Germany do what they want. Against that background, the last
World War started. Now, I've said on other occasions that I think
what has~ happened now is equivalent to 1936 Germany marching into
the Rhineland an d therefore the purpose-aof the United States
and of others who support it, is to try and establish the circumstanceE
where those other subsequent steps which occurred in the latter part
of the ' 30s do not occur in the earlier part of the
Question: Time may eventually show that the stance the Labor Party was wrong,
but is it not provocatiAve to paint the sort of Inicture that gives the
sort of feeling that you did to Parliament today suggesting there
was a pro-Soviet feeling in the Opposition.
Prime minister:
There is just one point that I would like to make to you if I
could. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain said this. " How horrible,
how fantastic and incredible it is that we should be digging
trenches and trying on gas masks here because of quarrel between
people of whom we know nothing". He was speaking of Czechoslovakia,
and that was after other events after the Rhineland, after Austria'-
but still not enough to spur France and Britain into really believing
that a stand was going to have to be made. Then we have Paul Keating
saying, " Vraway from our area of interest, Australia
is not threatened by Afhganistan. It is extremely dnlikely that the
Soviet Union will attack Pakistan or Iran. Afterall, who-would want
Pakistan, for that matter, who-would want Afghanistan?"
Now that is exhibiting a lack of concern, a lack of interest in,
people whose life is just as valuable as yours or mine. If the invasio:
was closer to us, would they take a different attitude. I am not
saying that the Labor Party is suppor * ting obviously that would be
absurd and a terrible charge to make supporting the Soviet Union.
But what I do say is that is if they seek to condemn the Soviet Union
as they have, then in the circumstances that prevail,. that is not
-3
]? rime Minister: ( cant.)
enough, because the whole lesson of history is that once an imperial
power starts out on an aggressive path, unless it is stopped by
determination, it continues. And it is because nations did not
recognise that in the 1930s that a World War in which tens of
millions of people died occurred. It could have so easily been
stopped on early occasions, and the stand that the President of
of the United States is making, the joint communique that was
issued by the French arnd the Germans just shortly before I arrived
in Bonn a week or so ago that as I understand is taking the steps,
making the statements, making the determination clear so the
tragic errors of the kind that occurred between 1936 and 1939 will
not be made between 1980 and some years hence. That'is.. what it is
all about and I just do not understand why the Australian
Parliament can't have a concerted view on this. Afterall, in
the motion that was passed, that committed and Mr Hayden did not
dissent from . it, he got up just towards the end of it and said we
don't think it is quite as serious as the Government thinks, and
therefore, e want a certain section deleted. But we did not accept
that. He did not dissent from another part which said countries
should act separately or in concert to take what action they could
to make sure that the abhorrence of many of us, nations from around
the world, is brought home to the Soviet Union But if you support
that kind of statement as an expression of the Parliament's view,
why then take steps to frustrate every single action that this
Government has taken that would help make that necessary step.